Lascaux Caves: Art as a Culture

Functions of Early Art

I think the cave artists were trying to give an amazing review of what life was like during their times. The art displayed in the Lascaux Caves gives the viewer a deep sense of what animals and people looked like back then in the eyes of the artist. The animals most often show movement and expression, as if the artists were trying to show how they functioned and behaved. These portraits of life from over 17000 years ago show people interesting facts of animals, people, and culture from that time period.

I think there were so many more animals in the paintings compared to people because I believe there were more animals than humans where the artists were living. In addition, I feel like the artists would have a better chance of drawing animals than humans because they did not know what an artist was or what he was doing. I think it might have been easier to draw animals in the cave, as well as they would look more elegant having many different types of animals painted on the wall.

The paintings can tell us about the life of animals in the early cave dwellers eyes. They show they shape and movement of many different animals, and we can compare them to animals today. In addition, the art shows how animals were accepted by the culture and how they behaved. Also, the paintings show early human culture and what the early humans looked like. The paintings show what type of medium was readily available in the early cave dwellers life. It showed that they considered art to be a very important part of their culture. The paintings also show some ancient figures such as ancient star charts. This shows that the early cave dwellers relied on star formations to help them through everyday cultural life. This shows some high intelligence of these people.

These early humans faced many difficult tasks to be able to paint the amazing figures in the caves. The artists had to paint inside steep, dangerous caves that had to be very dark. It would be a very difficult challenge just to get into the caves and around them without being injured. I think painting on surfaces of rock that is very uneven would be difficult to control the painting process and how one would want to paint. I think it would be difficult for some of the artists to paint the animals they did because they would have to observe them without being harmed.

I think these paintings provide important functions to the culture of these early humans. One function of the art would be to serve as a leisure activity to the people of the early cave dwelling society, serving as their society's pastime. Secondly, I think the art serves as a medium of history to show what life was like back in the early cave cultures. Even thousands of years later, one can view amazing paintings that portray the history of these cave dwelling humans. Thirdly, the art could serve as a source of communication between people of the early humans. They could use their art as a source of telling a story and communicating to another individual or group.

Commonalities in Function

The functions in the art of the early humans compared to that of modern art shows some important similarities. One similarity is that the art provides a leisure for the culture. One can use art to fulfill hobbies and as a medium to express oneself. In addition, modern and early art is used as communication of stories and thought. The art is seen as a medium to tell stories and spread ideas in the artist's culture. In both early and modern art, the art serves as a function of preserving the history for future generations. The art can be viewed by many generations in the future and can see what culture was like for the artist and what influenced him to create it.

My Favorite Art: Sculpture

People who use sculpture to express themselves do so by creating a three dimensional piece of art. Sculpture serves as a way for the artist to model something in real life or to model abstract ideas that show their emotion in their mind. The material the artist uses to sculpt with serves as a function. The material signifies a mood the artist wants to create for the viewer of the sculpture. In addition, some sculptures function as a preservation of history, such as a famous person. They want this person's legacy to live on for as long as possible to give future generations more information.

I think the art of sculpture had its own culture back in the early years of the Greek culture. They used there own set of language and behaviors throughout the making of sculptures. The sculpture was a very important part of the Greek culture and is seen today has its own unique art form. Today, I  don' think there is any special form of unique dress or behavior that goes on in the art form of sculpture. I think the only unique ideas that surround the art form is the language used to describe the process of sculpting. All the techniques and different mediums used have a unique language that only the sculptors know.

I think this art form benefits society because it can be used to showcase the life of human being who have changed our history in a positive modern. Sculptures and statues of presidents and war heroes remind people of the amazing things they have done in there life. Also, abstract sculptures serve as a unique way to showcase different emotions and give other people something to think about when they see an amazing sculpture. It gets them thinking critically and realizing that art is an important part of our culture. Although all of these reasons are positive, I think sculptures can have an negative consequence. They can be vandalized and create a cultural problem for some people in different parts of the world. Sometimes, sculptures or statues of bad people are made and they create an uneasy feeling for people who think they should be brought down. Some examples of these are the Saddam Hussein and Joe Paterno statues.

The Yanomamo Culture: Politics and Violence

All cultures have different rules or laws regarding the killing of other people and the punishment they shall receive. In Western culture today, laws are written in stone that prevent people from killing another person. There are very strict laws that will punish a person who is to break these rules of killing, such as life in prison or the death penalty. In contrast, the Yanomamo have no written language and no formal laws. They violate general rules and customs whenever personal gain can be achieved. Since they don’t have a written form of laws as a guiding principle, the rules are broken on a near daily basis. Many different types of violence are a result from the lack of written language and law.

In the Yanomamo culture, the most common reason for killing is the act of revenge on a previous killing. The main reason they cite this revenge is because of “women.” The people who are out for revenge must be careful of an ongoing, viscous circle of revenge back in their direction. The Yanomamo see the revenge killing as an advantageous counterbalance to the killing that was done to them earlier. In addition, the Yanomamo explain that a village that has a reputation for swift retaliation is attacked less frequently, and as a result they do not have as many mortalities. Also, the Yanomamo culture sees revenge as a social benefit, giving men who take part in revenge as having higher reproductive success and higher marital success. These two benefits to the act of revenge show why it is so important in the Yanomamo culture.

Unokais: Those who have killed. In the Yanomamo culture, one who kills must follow a ritual purification called unokaimou. One purpose of this ritual is to avert any supernatural harm on oneself from the soul of the victim. The benefit of being a unokais means you are fierce and respected as one who enacts revenge. Another benefit of the unokais is the higher reproductive success than a non-unokais. This greater success in reproduction is due to the greater success of finding a mate. This is one reason a man would rather become a unokais rather than a non-unokais. The benefit of being a non-unokais would be the benefit of a less risky life of killing and revenge. They live a life with fewer mortal risks than the unokais.

Revenge killing is an integral part of the Yanomamo culture. It has relationships with all aspects of life, including political structure, social status, kinship, and marriage and reproduction. Each of the Yanomamo villages has certain descent groups. Each descent group has one or more political leaders, or patas. These patas can have many wives and a lot of children. They are the headsman of the group and all of them in the given study are unokais. In the tribal world warfare is the extension of kinship obligations by violence because the political system is organized by kinship.  Revenge killing has a big influence on the social status of the Yanomamo culture. Those who participate in revenge killings are seen as higher up on the social ladder. They have more power and influence on social organization among the village people. Kinship relates to the revenge killings and how people are related to each other in their culture. A person is related to another if at least one genealogical connection between them exists. Most individuals, however, are related to their kin in multiple ways. In most villages well over 80% of the members are related to more than 75% of the village. Data from the article shows that members of the village are related to each other more closely than half cousinship. Killing among the Yanomamo culture is very important for the loss of individuals. Nearly 70% of all individuals (males and females) age 40 or older have lost at least one close genetic kin due to violence, and most (57%) have lost two or more. This is a very important factor to why the village people lose so many family members. Revenge killing has a huge affect on the marriage and reproduction behavior of the Yanomamo. Those who participate in the revenge killing, the unokais, have a higher rate of marital success and a higher rate of reproductive success. Both of these facts are due to them having greater success finding a mate to marry and reproduce with. They find greater success finding mates because they either appropriate them forcibly from others, or by customary marriage alliance arrangements in which they seem to be more attractive as mates than non-unokais. As you can see above, revenge killing constitutes a major part of the Yanomamo culture.

I think we must have laws against “anti-social” behavior, like killing other people. Even though these actions are considered ones that no one should want to do, they must have laws instated against them because violence is a potent force in human society and may be the sole driving force of human evolution. As organisms on Earth, we are implanted with traits to promote our survival and reproduction, which means we may have to kill to revive these human needs. Also, I think some people who have emotional disorders can kill other people without realizing the importance of the crime of taking a life. Laws must be present to remind them of the importance of taking a life. I think we should have more stringent laws on anti-social behaviors. This should make it less likely for people to commit these heinous crimes.

Kinship Analysis

I choose to interview my grandfather, Jim Tanner, for the kinship analysis essay. My grandfather was born in Sterling, Colorado in 1934. Since then, he has moved out to California and has lived in Santa Clarita for over 40 years.  He comes from Swedish and English descent and considers himself a middle class citizen. He has retired from the education sector and has taken maintained a great relationship with his family. I knew he would be a great choice for an interview in order to fulfill this assignment.

As far as the interview goes, I felt very comfortable throughout the entire interview. I even asked my grandfather how it went afterwards, and he said it was very pressure-free and relaxed. Conversing in a calm tone helped maintain a nice atmosphere to get a solid interview done. Also, the interview was conducted in my grandfather’s home, which added a more comfortable setting for him to answer some questions. There were not any specific times I could think of throughout the entire interview that created awkwardness. This helped me get all the information I needed for the interview without making anybody uncomfortable. On the other hand, I think it would have been much more difficult if I was interviewing someone that was unrelated to me. The fact that I would not have as much knowledge with the person, it would make it more difficult to talk to this person about important information. Also, I think there would be many more awkward instances throughout the interview that would create some uneasiness for both of us.

When analyzing my family’s kinship chart, I found some patterns dealing with family size, closeness, and socialization levels. The size of my family is very large and continues throughout the entire chart. Most sections of my family have at least three to five kids. This is higher than the average amount of kids. My grandfather had four other siblings, with each of them having an average of four kids. I think this large family size was an idea passed on from generation to generation and has continued today. My grandfather was closer to his children rather than his nieces and nephews, which is what I expected going into the interview. I think this is the same for most families today. My grandfather knew everybody in his family and knew a lot of information about them. He knew more about his children and grandchildren that lived very close to him, which is expected because he communicated with them more than others farther from him. Throughout the kinship chart, I saw a pattern of socialization patterns. All of the members were apart of the middle class level and believed in the same cultural values. The attitude towards younger members and older members remains the same in my family. Each age group is represented equally, and they are treated equally. My family is very ethnically similar, which creates no social impact on the family’s relationship with one another. My kinship chart follows a pattern of patrilocal residence. This means the residence pattern of the married couple lives in the husband’s father’s place of residence. I did not see any emphasis on a maternal or a paternal line of descent on the kinship chart.

I learned a lot of information after interviewing my grandfather for this kinship assignment. I know the relatives on both sides of my family, but I would say I am much closer to the relatives on my mother’s side of the family. I socialize and visit with them more as well. This is due to ethnic reasons that have created more relationships with the family on my mom’s side. I think my grandfather and my grandmother have the most influence on decisions made in the family. I think this is because they are the most vocal about many decisions and our family trusts them to make the right decision. Also, they are the eldest in the family and have experience making difficult decisions. They also know the most about each of their family members, which helps them make educated decisions. I think that family members are treated differently when they are married into our family. There is more scrutiny on their actions and decisions. I can remember some specific examples where the member married into the family was treated differently than if they were born into the family. I don’t believe there is any attitude that changes based on the gender of the family member. I think each gender is treated equally in my family. I have learned how big my family really is, and that I did not even know about some of my distant relatives at all. It was really interesting to here that they had some common themes that I had. In addition, getting to interview someone about kinship patterns was a new way of practicing my interviewing skills and getting more information about my family. I had a lot of fun learning many new things about kinship and my family.

Subsistence and Economy

Part 1

Two major types of subsistence patterns used by humans have been hunter-gatherers and agriculture. Both of these types of subsistence patterns have benefits and drawbacks. The benefits of a hunter-gatherer system are less exposure to disease due to constant migration, a more diverse range of foods, and a healthier lifestyle due to constant movement. The hunter-gatherer moves around from place to place without staying stagnant. This characteristic didn’t suit a healthy environment for some disease like it does today in crowded establishments. In addition, the hunter-gatherer had a wide range of food due to movement to new environments. This means they are not eating only salty or sugary foods that cause health problems. Finally, their migratory lifestyle has the ability to enhance health by constantly walking and moving.

The benefits of an agricultural system of subsistence include a steady source of food, a more specialized workforce, and the ability to sustain larger populations. The agrarian society gives people a steady source of food supply that can be relied on for most times of the year, except for drought or insect problems. The fact that people can rely on a steady source of food means they have more time settle in one location and concentrate on other forms of leisure. Also, the invention of agriculture resulted in a specialization of skills. People could now designate their skills toward certain parts of their society due to the fact that they could settle down. Finally, the agrarian society has allowed large populations to settle in one place because of a steady food source. These people can stay in a settlement without worry that they need to search for food.

Even though these subsistence patterns have many benefits, they also have some drawbacks. The hunter-gatherer has to find food on a day-to-day basis because they do not have a permanent source of food like agrarian societies. This means that they can die from hunger if food is not found in their new environment. Another disadvantage of the hunter-gatherer system is the fact that this system cannot sustain a large population of people. Since they migrate and find new places for food, they can only travel in groups small enough that the food they find can sustain.

The agricultural system of subsistence has some disadvantages as well. Their agricultural product is not permanent, it can be subject to water shortages, insects, and low food yields. These factors make getting the amount of food you need very difficult. In addition, the agrarian society can suit large populations, which allow disease to thrive. Many new diseases were present in places of agricultural settlement due to the populous amount of people. Even though the agricultural society creates labor specialization, this can be seen as a drawback because it means people do not have an all around skillset that they can use to help them throughout their life for many different situations.

I think the hunter-gatherer system provides a healthier lifestyle. The constant change in food means that people are not eating the same foods repeatedly. The constant movement from place to place and eating of nutritional foods makes the diet healthier for a hunter-gatherer. The fact that they can only support how much they can feed means that they can eat much smaller portions of food at many more intervals throughout the day, which are healthier for humans.

I think early humans turned towards agriculture because they found it very hard to be constantly migrating from place to place all the time. I think the human bod has trouble acquainting to new places all the time. They just needed to find a steady source of food, which is why they went for agrarian societies. The early humans did not want to lose loved ones and travel in small groups. They wanted to keep all members alive so they had to develop an agricultural based system.

Part 2

There is a direct relationship between the availability of surplus and the ability to trade because one must have the necessary amount of goods to survive for them as well as to trade to other people. It is impossible to trade something that you do not have.

Two social benefits to trade include the increase in social relationships and the increase in specialization of certain technologies of the trading parties. When two parties trade, they are creating a social relationship between one another because they are mutually trading items that benefit one another. This creates relationships that last between people, countries, and industries. In addition, trading creates specialization within society. Since one party may be trading their products to others, they can specialize their technology so they become very efficient in what they are doing to increase profit.

Two negative social results of the development of trade are the creation of monopolies and the increase in debt relations between parties in the trade. A monopoly is when a particular person or enterprise is the sole supplier of a certain commodity. This is a drawback because if one person controls a viable commodity, they can drive up the prices and people will have to go through them to buy that commodity. On the same note, trade can create debt implications on parties that trade products for something of lesser value. This puts countries in international debt, setting them back in areas such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure in order to use their money to pay back debt.

Agriculture is related to trade by the production of food products that can be traded between regions throughout the world. Now that humans have found a way to settle in a place viable to grow crops, they can trade to others around the world to obtain items that will help them survive. Since all humans cannot produce everything that they need to survive, trading has helped them get these items.